Today it's only gonna be a picture though, say, as proof that I'm really in the wilderniss if you so wish. :P
Here's a picture I took yesterday at dusk:
Hope all is well with you all, my dear readers!
Julia
Monday, July 7, 2008
The Basateen of Austria greets you!
So I'm in a little village in Austria right now, with a lack of internet for the next 2-3 weeks. However, I'll still drop in every now and again with articles for you guys.
Today it's only gonna be a picture though, say, as proof that I'm really in the wilderniss if you so wish. :P
Here's a picture I took yesterday at dusk:
Hope all is well with you all, my dear readers!
Today it's only gonna be a picture though, say, as proof that I'm really in the wilderniss if you so wish. :P
Here's a picture I took yesterday at dusk:
Hope all is well with you all, my dear readers!
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
What you see is not always what you get!
Hello my little chickens,
So I slacked off last week and didn't post anything- my apologies if you threw your computer out of the window in wild rage and disappointment. I don't even have a proper excuse, I was simply on vacation for the first time since March and since I'm currently alone in Jeddah (until tomorrow that is) I just opted for lying in the sun like a dead fish and doing nothing instead. Sorry again though, I felt guilty about it all week and kind of worried about coming back online in case I should expect virtual tomatoes being thrown at my face.
Right, before I get into today's topic I just wanted to share a small update on my own life with you all: Many of you already know that I'll be travelling to my oh-so-beloved Lebanon in December, BUT.. today I decided to attach a trip to Sudan as well. As many of you are surely aware of, being the avid readers that you are, there are many peace missions going on in Sudan and that's what I will be checking out. I was offered a trip there by the German embassy because I showed an interest in the current situation so will hopefully be checking this out. Also, I found out today from a friend that there are some very interesting archaeological things happening there so am VERY excited about that and currently feel much like Lara Croft. ;-)
But enough of my own little over-excited ego-trip and onto today's topic: Women!
Until today, despite the vast and flourishing media we have (or perhaps partly because of it?) Middle Eastern women are often-times misconceived as being suppressed by their stone-age husbands, they're being beaten, forced to get married to men three-times their age, etc. etc. However, is that really true?
Let's break this up into small, chewable pieces, shall we?
First of all, any suppression of women in the Middle East (just like anywhere else) has nothing at all to do with religion. In fact, women are valued very highly in religion as they are the bearers of new life, the mothers of our children. There is a very interesting website (http://www.womaninthequran.com/) which quotes the Qur'an as saying,
"The men and women of the believers are friends of one another. They command what is right and forbid what is wrong, keep up prayer and give the alms [zakat], and obey Allah and His Messenger. They are the people on whom Allah will have mercy. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise." (Surat at-Tawba: 71)
In the explanation the website's writer explained that, "What truly matters in Islamic morality is not whether someone is male or female, but whether or not he or she is a believer who fears and respects Allah." Which is a fair point in any religion!
So I can hear some of you saying, 'But I've seen the reports on TV! There were women being beaten by their husbands! And some of them are forced to cover themselves entirely!'
Well for the most part no one is forced to do anything- and definitely not by the religion! Even in Saudi Arabia where the religious police (muttawa) try to make sure everyone dresses appropriately according to the religious laws of the country, no one can force you to do anything you don't want to do.
Sure, occasionally you hear of a woman getting beaten, but you equally hear of men being murdered- just like in any other country! It's got nothing to do with the religion and nothing to do with the supposed "suppression" of women. You've just got to learn to differentiate between ordinary crimes and tradition- and in some cases, the veiling of women is a tradition, just like the "arranged marriages" that the people of the West so frown upon.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally for arranged marriages at all! Just thinking about the kind of husband my parents would choose for me makes me shiver (preferrably a trumpet-playing Tyrolean who wears leather-shorts, one of those funny hats and herds sheep in his free time). However, I have a few friends who are actually encouraging their parents to choose their partner for life; and why not? If you do trust that your parents know you that well and are convinced that they can pick someone for you who will make you happy, then why not? (No offense, mom, I just don't like sheep that much! ;-))
So in other words: Sure, crimes happen here just like everywhere else, and sure there are the occasional sick parents who try to marry their daughters to men who could easily be their grandfathers, but mostly the traditions we see on television are just that: traditions. Which is why the veiling is a tradition that goes back to the times of the Ottoman Empire (however this I can't discuss here- you'll have to wait for the next issue of The Orient to read more about that!) and very understandable and often useful! After all, would you like going into the streets and having random men stare at you as though you're from the planet of the apes? Further, arranged marriages are also a tradition here, which many beduin families still follow. Same with the multiple wives, and same with the laws against women driving in KSA. After all, something like the prohibiting of women to drive in Saudi Arabia couldn't have been written in the Qur'an, now could it? Hence, why it is a tradition, nothing more, nothing less.
The only thing you should therefore worry about is your own prejudices, because those really are out there, not just from the West to the East, but also vice-versa. Which is why I've often times been looked down upon as being a stereotypical "white girl" with the values of a pornstar- and why? Because I happen to have blue eyes and naturally lighter hair and don't speak Arabic. Now my friends would laugh in anyone's face if they heard them claim these things about me, because they know I'm rather comparable to a hermit than a pornstar. But there you see what prejudices can do! (And by the way, before you start throwing your tomatoes after all, I did say "stereotypical"- in other words of course I'm aware that not all so-called "white girls" are like that!)
I'm sorry if I gave you a somewhat typical rant today, but it was on my mind. So be careful! What you see is not always what you get!
-J
PS: On a side note- I love how you all read my posts and then decide to comment on them elsewhere! It makes me look oh SO great! lol (Sarcasm! If you're gonna comment on these posts, do me a favour and do it on here so it actually makes sense when I read it. Please.)
So I slacked off last week and didn't post anything- my apologies if you threw your computer out of the window in wild rage and disappointment. I don't even have a proper excuse, I was simply on vacation for the first time since March and since I'm currently alone in Jeddah (until tomorrow that is) I just opted for lying in the sun like a dead fish and doing nothing instead. Sorry again though, I felt guilty about it all week and kind of worried about coming back online in case I should expect virtual tomatoes being thrown at my face.
Right, before I get into today's topic I just wanted to share a small update on my own life with you all: Many of you already know that I'll be travelling to my oh-so-beloved Lebanon in December, BUT.. today I decided to attach a trip to Sudan as well. As many of you are surely aware of, being the avid readers that you are, there are many peace missions going on in Sudan and that's what I will be checking out. I was offered a trip there by the German embassy because I showed an interest in the current situation so will hopefully be checking this out. Also, I found out today from a friend that there are some very interesting archaeological things happening there so am VERY excited about that and currently feel much like Lara Croft. ;-)
But enough of my own little over-excited ego-trip and onto today's topic: Women!
Until today, despite the vast and flourishing media we have (or perhaps partly because of it?) Middle Eastern women are often-times misconceived as being suppressed by their stone-age husbands, they're being beaten, forced to get married to men three-times their age, etc. etc. However, is that really true?
Let's break this up into small, chewable pieces, shall we?
First of all, any suppression of women in the Middle East (just like anywhere else) has nothing at all to do with religion. In fact, women are valued very highly in religion as they are the bearers of new life, the mothers of our children. There is a very interesting website (http://www.womaninthequran.com/) which quotes the Qur'an as saying,
"The men and women of the believers are friends of one another. They command what is right and forbid what is wrong, keep up prayer and give the alms [zakat], and obey Allah and His Messenger. They are the people on whom Allah will have mercy. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise." (Surat at-Tawba: 71)
In the explanation the website's writer explained that, "What truly matters in Islamic morality is not whether someone is male or female, but whether or not he or she is a believer who fears and respects Allah." Which is a fair point in any religion!
So I can hear some of you saying, 'But I've seen the reports on TV! There were women being beaten by their husbands! And some of them are forced to cover themselves entirely!'
Well for the most part no one is forced to do anything- and definitely not by the religion! Even in Saudi Arabia where the religious police (muttawa) try to make sure everyone dresses appropriately according to the religious laws of the country, no one can force you to do anything you don't want to do.
Sure, occasionally you hear of a woman getting beaten, but you equally hear of men being murdered- just like in any other country! It's got nothing to do with the religion and nothing to do with the supposed "suppression" of women. You've just got to learn to differentiate between ordinary crimes and tradition- and in some cases, the veiling of women is a tradition, just like the "arranged marriages" that the people of the West so frown upon.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally for arranged marriages at all! Just thinking about the kind of husband my parents would choose for me makes me shiver (preferrably a trumpet-playing Tyrolean who wears leather-shorts, one of those funny hats and herds sheep in his free time). However, I have a few friends who are actually encouraging their parents to choose their partner for life; and why not? If you do trust that your parents know you that well and are convinced that they can pick someone for you who will make you happy, then why not? (No offense, mom, I just don't like sheep that much! ;-))
So in other words: Sure, crimes happen here just like everywhere else, and sure there are the occasional sick parents who try to marry their daughters to men who could easily be their grandfathers, but mostly the traditions we see on television are just that: traditions. Which is why the veiling is a tradition that goes back to the times of the Ottoman Empire (however this I can't discuss here- you'll have to wait for the next issue of The Orient to read more about that!) and very understandable and often useful! After all, would you like going into the streets and having random men stare at you as though you're from the planet of the apes? Further, arranged marriages are also a tradition here, which many beduin families still follow. Same with the multiple wives, and same with the laws against women driving in KSA. After all, something like the prohibiting of women to drive in Saudi Arabia couldn't have been written in the Qur'an, now could it? Hence, why it is a tradition, nothing more, nothing less.
The only thing you should therefore worry about is your own prejudices, because those really are out there, not just from the West to the East, but also vice-versa. Which is why I've often times been looked down upon as being a stereotypical "white girl" with the values of a pornstar- and why? Because I happen to have blue eyes and naturally lighter hair and don't speak Arabic. Now my friends would laugh in anyone's face if they heard them claim these things about me, because they know I'm rather comparable to a hermit than a pornstar. But there you see what prejudices can do! (And by the way, before you start throwing your tomatoes after all, I did say "stereotypical"- in other words of course I'm aware that not all so-called "white girls" are like that!)
I'm sorry if I gave you a somewhat typical rant today, but it was on my mind. So be careful! What you see is not always what you get!
-J
PS: On a side note- I love how you all read my posts and then decide to comment on them elsewhere! It makes me look oh SO great! lol (Sarcasm! If you're gonna comment on these posts, do me a favour and do it on here so it actually makes sense when I read it. Please.)
Monday, June 16, 2008
Princess Condoleezza (2 es, 2 zs, 1 a)
So it's Monday again, and I'm once again sitting at my Arab News office and trying to jumble up something of interest for you guys in between phone calls and trying to look as mean as I can possibly manage to the idiot sitting in front of me (hehe). // edit: So I just unplugged his internet cable... let's see how long it's gonna take him to work out that his computer isn't broken, but simply not plugged in. ;-)
Before I get into today's topic though, I've gotta say thank you to all of you who took the Orient survey last week and so grandly praised my blog. Only one person decided to click "could be better" so my ego wasn't harmed too badly, because I'm anyhow assuming that they were an Obama lover (and possibly the same person who put "too much Lebanon and Saudi" as a bias? Come on, each issue focuses on a specific country. So what did you expect in the Lebanon issue? An article on the Philippines??) Anyhow the main point I was trying to make was 'thank you', I'm glad you're enjoying it so far. I am too. :-)
One more thing before I get into today's topic, just to follow up on last week's post: Today's Arab News showed our dear Obama holding a shovel because he's been busy filling sand bags in Illinois (because he's nice like that, and ONLY because he's nice like that. Of course.) and last I heard of McCain, he was proclaiming his love for ABBA somewhere while listing all the "prominent" supporters he has (100% of whom I have NEVER heard of before, forgive me). Aside from that the most useful thing I've been able to pull out of my hat about the two today is that Joe Lieberman (a US Senator from Connecticut) "accused Obama for blaming US policies for "Essentially sort of strengthening" Iran. "If Israel is in danger today, it's not because of American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way," he said. "It is not because of what we have done in Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical terrorist, expansionist state." (quotes the Associated Press today)
Oh BLA BLA! If I didn't know the man is about 70, I'd say he sounds like a little kid blaming god and the world for insulting his mommy.
Onto today's topic.
Condoleezza Rice (2 es, 2 zs, 1 a). Once again the US Secretary of State (sort of like the princess of the secretary world) visited the Middle East in order to encourage peace talks and collaboration.
First, Ms. Rice visited Israel again, where she criticized the illegal settlements that are still being expanded and added in the West Bank. Good move, because last week, according to AP, Israel said it would build 1,300 new apartments in East Jerusalem. Now I'd dig out my international law book if I was at home, but even without quoting directly how wrong it is by LAW to still expand and add settlements in territory that is essentially not Israel's own, I think you'll get the drift.
Later on, Condoleezza Rice visited Lebanon on a surprise journey to show her support for the country's new President, Michel Suleiman. In Naharnet she was quoted as saying, "I am also going to express the United States support for Lebanese democracy, for Lebanese sovereignty." and that her visit was aimed at discussing "how the United States can support the institutions of a free Lebanon including the work that we do to support the armed forces, to support the Lebanese economy and the Lebanese civil society."
Hear, hear, lots of support for Lebanon from the US as it seems. I'd probably think very highly of those words if I wasn't such a damn cynic by now in regards to politics (especially Middle Eastern politics). So what's the plan, Ms. Rice? Let's give Lebanon arms to shoot at... hmm.. maybe Israel again? (We'll give Israel some more arms too, because they're starting run out I bet... with the millions they're already receiving from the US each year), then once they're at it they'll probably want even MORE arms (that would be helping their, excuse me *cough* our (US) economy). Wait, what, our?
According to statistics by the Lebanese Ministry of Economy and Trade the US is not even listed as a major importer. Neither is it listed by statistics I just found on Wikipedia (yea, yea I know, shut up). The main importers of Lebanese goods are other Arab Nations (notably Syria) and European countries, with only a small percentage going to the rest of the world (21.8%). And the US isn't noted in either document.
On the other hand export wise, the US is right there on the list with Italy, France, Syria, Germany, China and the UK.
However when you look even more closely then the statistics show that in 2005 Lebanon imported a grand total of 548,000,000 US$ worth of goods while exporting only 58,000,000 US$ worth of their own exported goods. For some reason I don't see Condoleezza's great promise of economic help reflected in this balance. (Have a look for yourself, here and here)
And HOW do you aim at aiding the Lebanese civil society? An AP article published about an hour ago quoted Condoleezza Rice as stating that, "This was an agreement [the recent Doha Agreement] that I think served the interests of the Lebanese people. And since it served the interests of the Lebanese people, it serves the interests of the United States. We support the democratically elected government of Lebanon."
So that's not an answer to 'how', but at least it reiterates how much she supports Lebanon's 'civil society' (although the claim of supporting democracy is nevertheless a bit of a thorn in my eye- wasn't the same thing claimed for Palestine when they held their own "democratic elections"?)
Don't get me wrong, I think Condoleezza Rice isn't a bad person and I'm not trying to make this a politician-bashing blog either. The reason I chose to write about this lady today was because I actually think she's an honest advocate for the Middle Eastern peace process. However much all her grand words too, once again, only proved to be empty promises. It's disappointing to me how little all these grand speeches made by politicians are ever backed by truthful statistics and even more disappointing how seldom a newspaper bothers checking their facts and explaining whether any of these claims actually have any real weight.
However the 53-year old Condoleezza appears to be a real advocate for the Middle East, having visited the region a great many times. Perhaps next time she'll answer the questions she poses herself, such as WHAT precisely the United States aims to do in Lebanon to 'aid the Lebanese civil society' and what will be done to stop further infringements on international law in Israel. Perhaps.
-Julia
Before I get into today's topic though, I've gotta say thank you to all of you who took the Orient survey last week and so grandly praised my blog. Only one person decided to click "could be better" so my ego wasn't harmed too badly, because I'm anyhow assuming that they were an Obama lover (and possibly the same person who put "too much Lebanon and Saudi" as a bias? Come on, each issue focuses on a specific country. So what did you expect in the Lebanon issue? An article on the Philippines??) Anyhow the main point I was trying to make was 'thank you', I'm glad you're enjoying it so far. I am too. :-)
One more thing before I get into today's topic, just to follow up on last week's post: Today's Arab News showed our dear Obama holding a shovel because he's been busy filling sand bags in Illinois (because he's nice like that, and ONLY because he's nice like that. Of course.) and last I heard of McCain, he was proclaiming his love for ABBA somewhere while listing all the "prominent" supporters he has (100% of whom I have NEVER heard of before, forgive me). Aside from that the most useful thing I've been able to pull out of my hat about the two today is that Joe Lieberman (a US Senator from Connecticut) "accused Obama for blaming US policies for "Essentially sort of strengthening" Iran. "If Israel is in danger today, it's not because of American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way," he said. "It is not because of what we have done in Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical terrorist, expansionist state." (quotes the Associated Press today)
Oh BLA BLA! If I didn't know the man is about 70, I'd say he sounds like a little kid blaming god and the world for insulting his mommy.
Onto today's topic.
Condoleezza Rice (2 es, 2 zs, 1 a). Once again the US Secretary of State (sort of like the princess of the secretary world) visited the Middle East in order to encourage peace talks and collaboration.
First, Ms. Rice visited Israel again, where she criticized the illegal settlements that are still being expanded and added in the West Bank. Good move, because last week, according to AP, Israel said it would build 1,300 new apartments in East Jerusalem. Now I'd dig out my international law book if I was at home, but even without quoting directly how wrong it is by LAW to still expand and add settlements in territory that is essentially not Israel's own, I think you'll get the drift.
Later on, Condoleezza Rice visited Lebanon on a surprise journey to show her support for the country's new President, Michel Suleiman. In Naharnet she was quoted as saying, "I am also going to express the United States support for Lebanese democracy, for Lebanese sovereignty." and that her visit was aimed at discussing "how the United States can support the institutions of a free Lebanon including the work that we do to support the armed forces, to support the Lebanese economy and the Lebanese civil society."
Hear, hear, lots of support for Lebanon from the US as it seems. I'd probably think very highly of those words if I wasn't such a damn cynic by now in regards to politics (especially Middle Eastern politics). So what's the plan, Ms. Rice? Let's give Lebanon arms to shoot at... hmm.. maybe Israel again? (We'll give Israel some more arms too, because they're starting run out I bet... with the millions they're already receiving from the US each year), then once they're at it they'll probably want even MORE arms (that would be helping their, excuse me *cough* our (US) economy). Wait, what, our?
According to statistics by the Lebanese Ministry of Economy and Trade the US is not even listed as a major importer. Neither is it listed by statistics I just found on Wikipedia (yea, yea I know, shut up). The main importers of Lebanese goods are other Arab Nations (notably Syria) and European countries, with only a small percentage going to the rest of the world (21.8%). And the US isn't noted in either document.
On the other hand export wise, the US is right there on the list with Italy, France, Syria, Germany, China and the UK.
However when you look even more closely then the statistics show that in 2005 Lebanon imported a grand total of 548,000,000 US$ worth of goods while exporting only 58,000,000 US$ worth of their own exported goods. For some reason I don't see Condoleezza's great promise of economic help reflected in this balance. (Have a look for yourself, here and here)
And HOW do you aim at aiding the Lebanese civil society? An AP article published about an hour ago quoted Condoleezza Rice as stating that, "This was an agreement [the recent Doha Agreement] that I think served the interests of the Lebanese people. And since it served the interests of the Lebanese people, it serves the interests of the United States. We support the democratically elected government of Lebanon."
So that's not an answer to 'how', but at least it reiterates how much she supports Lebanon's 'civil society' (although the claim of supporting democracy is nevertheless a bit of a thorn in my eye- wasn't the same thing claimed for Palestine when they held their own "democratic elections"?)
Don't get me wrong, I think Condoleezza Rice isn't a bad person and I'm not trying to make this a politician-bashing blog either. The reason I chose to write about this lady today was because I actually think she's an honest advocate for the Middle Eastern peace process. However much all her grand words too, once again, only proved to be empty promises. It's disappointing to me how little all these grand speeches made by politicians are ever backed by truthful statistics and even more disappointing how seldom a newspaper bothers checking their facts and explaining whether any of these claims actually have any real weight.
However the 53-year old Condoleezza appears to be a real advocate for the Middle East, having visited the region a great many times. Perhaps next time she'll answer the questions she poses herself, such as WHAT precisely the United States aims to do in Lebanon to 'aid the Lebanese civil society' and what will be done to stop further infringements on international law in Israel. Perhaps.
-Julia
Monday, June 9, 2008
Let's all say it together: US & Israel - BFF!!
I'm having a hard time concentrating on writing to you all right now, as I am at my Arab News office and there are a million things to be done simultaneously. However as we stand I find that it is about time for my first post in this weblog. After all we don't want you all to get bored of The Orient before the second issue is even out!
So it has caught my attention that the US elections have been all over the TV and news for, well a while really, but even more so recently due to Hillary Clinton's defeat by Barack Obama. And I've been thinking, with all the attention that is being paid to Senator Obama and the vast cries for having a 'first black President' and 'a Muslim President' - oh yes, a good 15% (according to an AP-Yahoo poll conducted in April) of Americans think he is Muslim - where does the infamous American hero-worshipping, GO AMERICA nationalism stop and the logic start?
A lot of my Arab friends are supporting Obama but without any valid reason. What, so he seems nicer than McCain because he looks a bit more like people in the Middle East while McCain reminds people of President Bush and french fries?
I think it's about time we dug into the Middle Eastern policies of the United States' most prominent Presidential runner ups:
Senator Barack Obama
Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, are from Kenya and Kansas, respectively. No one seems to know why his middle name is Hussein, however it definitely isn't due to any kind of Islamic or Middle Eastern origin.
In March 2008, Obama told the Council on Foreign Relations that, "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region." Well that sounds lovely in its own right, however why the focus on helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors? What, do the neighbors not want peace? Are they blindly staggering through a conflict that has been going on for over 60 years, actively preventing a peace that Israel - of course - wants so badly?
Then there is of course the haunting article from AlJazeera on June 4, 2008 where it states:
"Obama also described the US bond with Israel as "unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable for ever" and said he spoke as a "true friend" of Israel."
How is it possible that so many amongst you support this guy? Even the Washington Post recently said that Obama's strategic plans regarding the Middle East are "the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration". And where did you get the idea (sorry Doug, please don't take offense! :)) that I was being even remotely sarcastic the other day when I wrote "Support Barack Obama - Shake hands with your new best friend Israel" on my Facebook? He said so himself! Senator Obama vows to be a "true friend"- well excellent! True friends are rare in today's day and age. Israel should consider itself very lucky.
Of course the Senator had initially supported a kind of anti-Israel idea; early on in his career he joined a church that was headed by "a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate" and some still believe he isn't being entirely honest about his true feelings about Israel. However that was in January, and however promising he sounded to the people of the Middle East and supporters back then, his aims have changed 180 degrees since. (And in my humble opinion I really couldn't care less whether that's because he needs to say certain things to survive politically or because he really supports Israel- the outcome will be the same in the end, won't it?)
So what are your true views regarding Israel, Senator Obama? And how come we can't for once have a candidate who honestly proclaims his support for the Middle East? What, you think you wouldn't be elected? Well, that may be true, however you could still give us a more neutral plan for a peace "between Israel and its neighboring countries" rather than support for Israel to "achieve a peace with its neighbors". You could encourage talks between Israel and Hamas, talks between the US and Hamas, talks between the US and Iran, rather than throw these organizations (terrorist or not) aside. Oh and isn't it funny that the US does not have an official definition for "terrorism"? Because did it publicly approve the dictionary definition
ter·ror·ism (noun)
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
then Israel would be in some (excuse me) deep shit, wouldn't it?
Senator John McCain
John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936 in Panama. He served as a naval aviator in Vietnam during the 1959-75 War and already ran as a potential candidate once before, in 2000, when he lost the nomination against George W. Bush.
Soo.. here we have someone not wavering at all in his ideas. McCain supports Israel and he admits it. Always has. And it's not pretty:
"As the threats to Israel's security increase, John McCain believes America's commitment must also grow. He strongly supports the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October, and is committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. "
"Iran's Leadership Has Repeatedly Used Violence To Undermine Israel And The Middle East Peace Process. Iran sponsors both Hamas and Hezbollah. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq, and remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism. " (Again, "terrorism"?) Ok so he has a point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leadership in Iran has consistently struck me as "Me Tarzan, You Jane" too... Ahmadinejad is powerful, says powerful things, doesn't listen to anyone and does whatever he thinks works for Iran at the time.
On his webpage he further goes on about posing stronger sanctions on Iran, both through the United Nations Security Council as well as with the help of other countries in the region. Personally that at least makes sense to me. Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Hezbollah's seen as a threat (let's disregard anything useful they've done in the past and PLEASE do me a favour and don't go off on me with a "you're against Hezbollah, do you know how much they've done for Lebanon??" rant. Please! I know what they've done, both the good things as well as the bad things and I reserve the right to withhold my opinion on that one because I don't think it is at all relevant.), so let's sanction Hezbollah. At least for once Lebanon is being kept out of the equation. I think that's not too illogical, is it?
"The Palestinian People Are Badly Served With Hamas In Charge Of Gaza. This is a group that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, to denounce violence, and to acknowledge prior peace commitments. They deliberately target Israeli civilians, spread hatred, and set back their people's cause with every new bombing."
Alright, well again, the man is saying the truth. The Palestinians are badly served with Hamas. At the very least we don't have another idiot ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are indeed the ones who voted for Hamas. The US is badly served with Bush. Good, so idiots vote for idiots, let's change?
"We Hope That The Talks Between Israel And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Will Yield Progress Toward Peace."
And he goes on about how the international community should support "our allies in Lebanon" (Sanioura perhaps?) and that "Israel's chance for enduring peace with Lebanon depends on a Lebanese government that has a monopoly on authority within its country's borders. We can fully empower our allies – not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal: better schools, hospitals, roads and power generation." I gotta say there he loses me a bit, because Hezbollah recently denounced its power quite a bit in not even wanting to be a part of the new Lebanese government. They added that "the Prime Minister should have a positive attitude". So where's the deal with that? Again, disregarding my own personal opinions, Hezbollah is and always has been a national movement, and much less a part of the Lebanese government. Perhaps they were not under the full control of the Lebanese government in past conflicts such as the 2006 War with Israel. However, recently the Lebanese government seems to have been doing an ok job. (Do correct me if I'm way off on that one!)
..And then he messes up right around here: "In the summer of 2006, Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped three young Israelis and have held them ever since. John McCain has met with the families and will bring attention to their situation, insist that the Geneva Conventions are observed, and call for the swift release of these men." The "thee young Israelis" as he so fatherly describes them were Israeli soldiers. And it was Hezbollah who kidnapped them. Where'd Hamas get into this?
Anyhow there you go, my two cents on the current two favorite US Presidential potentials. Does everything I just said mean I favor McCain? God no! Why would I favor anybody, politician or ordinary mortal, who even remotely utters his support for Israel? Don't get me wrong, after 60 years I'm hardly amongst those disillusioned Che Guevara wannabes who still want to eliminate Israel and ship them off to some deserted area of Mexico. Eventually the Arab nations will have to accept Israel as a state, that is the reality, whether we like it or not. However no one should ever accept that Palestinian land is still taken over every day, that illegal (by international law!) settlements are still spread in clusters all over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and that Palestinians are generally deprived of a real homeland (just as the Jewish were, incidentally, before Israel was founded some 60 years ago). Some resolution will have to be found, one way or another, and God knows how that will happen! However I do believe openly boasting "friendship" with Israel is not the right approach, neither are ignoring so-called terrorist organizations or aiding any side with more weapons. What are you trying to achieve with that, when you're simultaneously looking down upon Palestinian rebels who are also just using weapons in their defense/offense?
So that's that, we've got Barack Obama and John McCain. One is trying hard to be a new JFK and making poetic speeches with lots of ambiguity and constant changing views on the Middle East (one day I'm all for going to an anti-Israeli church, the next day Israel is my new best friend), the other is hard and consistent in his views however pro-Israeli they still are, just the same.
What can I say... happy voting! I'm glad I won't have to.
-J
So it has caught my attention that the US elections have been all over the TV and news for, well a while really, but even more so recently due to Hillary Clinton's defeat by Barack Obama. And I've been thinking, with all the attention that is being paid to Senator Obama and the vast cries for having a 'first black President' and 'a Muslim President' - oh yes, a good 15% (according to an AP-Yahoo poll conducted in April) of Americans think he is Muslim - where does the infamous American hero-worshipping, GO AMERICA nationalism stop and the logic start?
A lot of my Arab friends are supporting Obama but without any valid reason. What, so he seems nicer than McCain because he looks a bit more like people in the Middle East while McCain reminds people of President Bush and french fries?
I think it's about time we dug into the Middle Eastern policies of the United States' most prominent Presidential runner ups:
Senator Barack Obama
Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, are from Kenya and Kansas, respectively. No one seems to know why his middle name is Hussein, however it definitely isn't due to any kind of Islamic or Middle Eastern origin.
In March 2008, Obama told the Council on Foreign Relations that, "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region." Well that sounds lovely in its own right, however why the focus on helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors? What, do the neighbors not want peace? Are they blindly staggering through a conflict that has been going on for over 60 years, actively preventing a peace that Israel - of course - wants so badly?
Then there is of course the haunting article from AlJazeera on June 4, 2008 where it states:
"Obama also described the US bond with Israel as "unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable for ever" and said he spoke as a "true friend" of Israel."
How is it possible that so many amongst you support this guy? Even the Washington Post recently said that Obama's strategic plans regarding the Middle East are "the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration". And where did you get the idea (sorry Doug, please don't take offense! :)) that I was being even remotely sarcastic the other day when I wrote "Support Barack Obama - Shake hands with your new best friend Israel" on my Facebook? He said so himself! Senator Obama vows to be a "true friend"- well excellent! True friends are rare in today's day and age. Israel should consider itself very lucky.
Of course the Senator had initially supported a kind of anti-Israel idea; early on in his career he joined a church that was headed by "a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate" and some still believe he isn't being entirely honest about his true feelings about Israel. However that was in January, and however promising he sounded to the people of the Middle East and supporters back then, his aims have changed 180 degrees since. (And in my humble opinion I really couldn't care less whether that's because he needs to say certain things to survive politically or because he really supports Israel- the outcome will be the same in the end, won't it?)
So what are your true views regarding Israel, Senator Obama? And how come we can't for once have a candidate who honestly proclaims his support for the Middle East? What, you think you wouldn't be elected? Well, that may be true, however you could still give us a more neutral plan for a peace "between Israel and its neighboring countries" rather than support for Israel to "achieve a peace with its neighbors". You could encourage talks between Israel and Hamas, talks between the US and Hamas, talks between the US and Iran, rather than throw these organizations (terrorist or not) aside. Oh and isn't it funny that the US does not have an official definition for "terrorism"? Because did it publicly approve the dictionary definition
ter·ror·ism (noun)
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
then Israel would be in some (excuse me) deep shit, wouldn't it?
Senator John McCain
John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936 in Panama. He served as a naval aviator in Vietnam during the 1959-75 War and already ran as a potential candidate once before, in 2000, when he lost the nomination against George W. Bush.
Soo.. here we have someone not wavering at all in his ideas. McCain supports Israel and he admits it. Always has. And it's not pretty:
"As the threats to Israel's security increase, John McCain believes America's commitment must also grow. He strongly supports the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October, and is committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. "
"Iran's Leadership Has Repeatedly Used Violence To Undermine Israel And The Middle East Peace Process. Iran sponsors both Hamas and Hezbollah. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq, and remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism. " (Again, "terrorism"?) Ok so he has a point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leadership in Iran has consistently struck me as "Me Tarzan, You Jane" too... Ahmadinejad is powerful, says powerful things, doesn't listen to anyone and does whatever he thinks works for Iran at the time.
On his webpage he further goes on about posing stronger sanctions on Iran, both through the United Nations Security Council as well as with the help of other countries in the region. Personally that at least makes sense to me. Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Hezbollah's seen as a threat (let's disregard anything useful they've done in the past and PLEASE do me a favour and don't go off on me with a "you're against Hezbollah, do you know how much they've done for Lebanon??" rant. Please! I know what they've done, both the good things as well as the bad things and I reserve the right to withhold my opinion on that one because I don't think it is at all relevant.), so let's sanction Hezbollah. At least for once Lebanon is being kept out of the equation. I think that's not too illogical, is it?
"The Palestinian People Are Badly Served With Hamas In Charge Of Gaza. This is a group that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, to denounce violence, and to acknowledge prior peace commitments. They deliberately target Israeli civilians, spread hatred, and set back their people's cause with every new bombing."
Alright, well again, the man is saying the truth. The Palestinians are badly served with Hamas. At the very least we don't have another idiot ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are indeed the ones who voted for Hamas. The US is badly served with Bush. Good, so idiots vote for idiots, let's change?
"We Hope That The Talks Between Israel And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Will Yield Progress Toward Peace."
And he goes on about how the international community should support "our allies in Lebanon" (Sanioura perhaps?) and that "Israel's chance for enduring peace with Lebanon depends on a Lebanese government that has a monopoly on authority within its country's borders. We can fully empower our allies – not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal: better schools, hospitals, roads and power generation." I gotta say there he loses me a bit, because Hezbollah recently denounced its power quite a bit in not even wanting to be a part of the new Lebanese government. They added that "the Prime Minister should have a positive attitude". So where's the deal with that? Again, disregarding my own personal opinions, Hezbollah is and always has been a national movement, and much less a part of the Lebanese government. Perhaps they were not under the full control of the Lebanese government in past conflicts such as the 2006 War with Israel. However, recently the Lebanese government seems to have been doing an ok job. (Do correct me if I'm way off on that one!)
..And then he messes up right around here: "In the summer of 2006, Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped three young Israelis and have held them ever since. John McCain has met with the families and will bring attention to their situation, insist that the Geneva Conventions are observed, and call for the swift release of these men." The "thee young Israelis" as he so fatherly describes them were Israeli soldiers. And it was Hezbollah who kidnapped them. Where'd Hamas get into this?
Anyhow there you go, my two cents on the current two favorite US Presidential potentials. Does everything I just said mean I favor McCain? God no! Why would I favor anybody, politician or ordinary mortal, who even remotely utters his support for Israel? Don't get me wrong, after 60 years I'm hardly amongst those disillusioned Che Guevara wannabes who still want to eliminate Israel and ship them off to some deserted area of Mexico. Eventually the Arab nations will have to accept Israel as a state, that is the reality, whether we like it or not. However no one should ever accept that Palestinian land is still taken over every day, that illegal (by international law!) settlements are still spread in clusters all over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and that Palestinians are generally deprived of a real homeland (just as the Jewish were, incidentally, before Israel was founded some 60 years ago). Some resolution will have to be found, one way or another, and God knows how that will happen! However I do believe openly boasting "friendship" with Israel is not the right approach, neither are ignoring so-called terrorist organizations or aiding any side with more weapons. What are you trying to achieve with that, when you're simultaneously looking down upon Palestinian rebels who are also just using weapons in their defense/offense?
So that's that, we've got Barack Obama and John McCain. One is trying hard to be a new JFK and making poetic speeches with lots of ambiguity and constant changing views on the Middle East (one day I'm all for going to an anti-Israeli church, the next day Israel is my new best friend), the other is hard and consistent in his views however pro-Israeli they still are, just the same.
What can I say... happy voting! I'm glad I won't have to.
-J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
